As Melanie says, many people in this country simply refuse to listen to the arguments of Bush and his administration. It would be very interesting to try to discover just how these ideas about America and Israel developed in this country, as they were obviously circulating well before September 11th 2001. I notice that many members of my generation (I'm 23) have these views. Could it be something to do with what people are taught in schools, with fashionable ideas attacking America, imperialism, etc?

Piers-
Where else can young minds get such ideas? I am afraid the tyranny of fashionable ideas amongst professors may be a insoluble problem of modern education. Your best protection is to be skeptical of everything you are told in studies of the "Sciences of Man", and to read a great deal, and draw your own conclusions.

I agree entirely with Melanie and I am glad that she reproduced a great deal more of the speech in her post that any of the TV stations did last night on their news coverage (that I saw, anyway). The BBC sound bites were skimpy and accompanied in the main with disparaging lay-offs. I congratulate Sky for giving us the full speech, albeit in the small wee hours. I think it was the best speech from an American President in my lifetime and as important as Winston's 'blood, tears and sweat' rallying call. The gauche and unruly schoolchildren that were on the streets of London yesterday with their peurile pranks; the tatty remnants of CND and anarchist groups who will be out today, are beyond help. But let's hope that the decent people of Britain, after Bush's speech. realise that the seriousness of the threat against the West comes from the bastards who set off the bombs in Turkey today and from idiots in this country whose anti-American bile feeds the frenzy of these demented terrorists, not from our closest ally. I despair for my country that our public Broadcaster provides so much oxygen to cowards and traitors.

The people in charge of the media are mostly lefties pursuing there own agenda. The BBC and the Guardian e.t.c. hate Bush because he's a Christian Conservative, nothing he can ever say or do will change their hatred of him. They hate America because of what it stands for - freedom, capatilism, standing with Israel e.t.c.

Unfortunately they use their power to constantly promote anti-Americanism. They potray Bush as stupid and they even try to imply that he had selfish reasons concerning oil for going to war, when anyone with half a brain cell could see that it was the nations who were against the war that were acting out of their own selfish interests in spite of the Iraqi people.

With the news of the Telegraph being sold, I fear that one of the few remaining lights in this country may be extinguished. Truth is disappearing fast.

Bush sounds so much mire articulate than Blair, and does not adopt the odd metre Blair uses in his speeches, nor the frequent juxtaposition so common in Blair deliveries.

In 1937 I believe 11.5 million people signed The Peace Ballot in Great Britain organised by the League of Nations Association; and yet it had no effect in the last instance. If it did not persuade Hitler to reason and compromise....he compromised at Munich but failed to over Poland.....Chamberlain did try very hard......but in the end even Neville Chamberlain had to declare war on a man who was intent on destruction.

Do I hear any of the demonstrators against George Bush advocating compromise with Al-Qaeda ? Could the propose women dress more modestly, long skirts, maybe a hijab or chadoor ? Should not society turn to a more ascetic and puritan approach to gain approval from the bin Laden ?

Perhaps giving up alcohol, music, make-up, television, posters, discos, pork, etc might make him feel they are genuinely willing to see his viewpoint ?

If these concessions were made perhaps his acolytes would not bomb, kill or maim people; perhaps he would find new demands to be met.

It is not that the terrorist does not like what we have DONE, it is that he hates what we ARE!

In October 1938, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, in a prophetic and chilling speech delivered in Warsaw, warned the Jews of Europe and most particularly Poland that they were sitting on the very edge of a calamity unknown even in the bleak history of the Jewish diaspora.

Given the gates of the world were slammed shut against them there was virtually nothing they could have done anyhow, but still, Jabotinsky complained bitterly that the Jews of Poland were utterly deaf to his pleas.

Ms. Phillips is very rapidly turning into the Ze'ev Jabotinsky of her generation, and not just for the Jewish people but for the entire civilised world; and like Jabotinsky and Cassandra before her I imagine she will, for the most part, be thoroughly ignored.

"Why, indeed. Welcome, David, to the looking-glass land where morality, reason and logic have been stood on their heads, where thousands of people believe that America and Israel are more of a threat to the free world than any Middle Eastern tyranny, and where terror is rubbing its hands in satisfaction at the moral and intellectual collapse that is now its recruiting sergeant on the streets of Britain"

Not just Britain, but all of Europe. And as I have argued elsewhere, Britain might appear a little different on the surface, but not so deep down she is and always has been just as rotten and corrupt as everywhere else on the benighted and quite wicked continent of Europe.

'President' Bush, surely?

I thought David Frum nailed Paxman beautifully in their first exchange on Tuesday's Newsnight, with his - " ... you're part of the problem" confrontation. Jaunty Jerry became quite flustered and only much later managed to stick his finger and Shirley Williams's bloomers in the below-the-waterline breach that Frum had inflicted. Well done David!

Great words from Bush - who could argue with a speech like that? Trouble is, I don't believe he means any of it. If the US is planning to end its association with corrupt and vicious dictatorships, then why are they sending military aid to Uzbekistan?

Great posting,Melanie.I shall try to come and see you at the panel discussion on Sunday.

Wonderful post, alas there are knee-jerk idiots who will not listen not matter Bush or Blair says. The attack on the Turkish Embassy is a sure sign that Al Queda doesn't give a damn about the anti-Bush/pro-terrorist side. I hope that the bombs today might make some of the less strident protestors think twice about their protesting today.

Melanie you deserve a Pullitzer prize or something for this one. I think most people do take broadly the same opinion as well. The real killer is that it doesn't play well on the BBC, CNN, NY Times, etc, etc. The comment above out institutional anti-American racism in academia is all too sadly true. The world needs more Melanies to speak their quiet truth a bit less quietly.

It isn't so much that Britain won't listen. It's that the mass of the population form their views on the basis of a constant diet of disinformation provided by the left-liberal mainstream media consensus.
David Frum hit the nail squarely on the head when he appeared on "Newsnight" on Tuesday. Rather than meekly accepting the preceding report's anti-American assumptions as a basis for discussion he went straight onto the attack and identified the said report as a prime example of the above mentioned left-liberal media disinformation. The look on Paxman's face was priceless!
Even so, insofar as they have any opinions at all, MOST folk I meet and deal with on a daily basis are not anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-American, anti-Israeli or antisemitic.
This may be wishful thinking on my part, but over the past day or two am I right in detecting an attempt by the usual suspects in the media to take some of the heat out of the fires they have stoked and to rebrand their rabid anti-Americanism as "anti-Bushism"? It's almost as if they fear that things may get out of hand and provoke a backlash. Indeed this seemed to be the underlying theme of the "Newsnight" item and subsequent discussion mentioned above. For those of you who missed it, by way of contrast to her "anti-Bushism", we were treated to the spectacle of Shirley Williams expressing her admiration for President Reagan!!

"Great words from Bush - who could argue with a speech like that? Trouble is, I don't believe he means any of it. If the US is planning to end its association with corrupt and vicious dictatorships, then why are they sending military aid to Uzbekistan?"

Joe Stalin was not 'pure' enough to be our ally in July 1941. He had been our enemy in May 1941, and he was not really a democrat even though the Left told us he was really.

I suppose Winston Churchill really would "ally himself with the Devil to defeat Hitler"......it seems like it worked to our advantage until 1945........such is life. Oh for the 'purity' of the cloister where the wicked ways of men do not intrude upon the virtuous.

I suppose Winston Churchill really would "ally himself with the Devil to defeat Hitler"......it seems like it worked to our advantage until 1945........such is life. Oh for the 'purity' of the cloister where the wicked ways of men do not intrude upon the virtuous.

Not sure I get your point, Peter. Are you saying that it is OK after all to align with a vicious dictator when it suits our purpose? Isn't that what got us into this mess?

Bush - fortunately - will be gone and quite forgotten in a couple of years. The BBC, in comparison, will outlive his pathetic presidency many, many times over, and rightly so. Thank God for the BBC (one of the few media outlets that we can trust).

Here in the states we've got the same crowd, allbeit smaller. It really is the new fascism, for it is built on absolute intollerance of any ideas that contradict their doctrine. And, not because they necessarily believe they have a better path to solving the worlds complex problems, but because no other ideas must be allowed to penetrate the propagandist bubble and disturb the orthodoxy. More like a cult really that feeds on the naive and disaffected, then sheilds them from criticsim by claiming all else is propaganda and conspiracy. Eventually it implodes, as the light turnout seemingly shows.

"Could it be something to do with what people are taught in schools, with fashionable ideas attacking America, imperialism, etc?"

It may come as a terrible shock but there are people in Britain capable of thinking independently and evaluating the evidence as documented. Criticism of the Bush administration does not entail being "anti-American", as Blair and the Bushies repeatedly claim. It is logically robust to be critical of the policies and decisions of the Bush administration while approving what are broadly taken to be the American values of freedom, enterprise, political pluralism and open debate. From experience, some of us have also come to appreciate that there are those who regard any analysis or evidence which does not accord with their prior beliefs as irrelevant or incredible.

Judging by what I read on the web, there are more than a few Americans wanting to disassociate themselves from this: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

President Bush's speech boils down to telling us how committed he is to virtue and utterly opposed to evil. By his later comments, Tony Blair was most impressed. Some of the rest of us were not. Amazing though it can seem, that does not mean we therefore endorse the aims, objectives and activites of al-Qaeda or its like.

Congratulations, Bob. I admire those who can look at this world and conclude they need not endorse the aims, objectives and activities of terrorists AND they need not endorse the aims, objectives and activities of those who oppose them. What a man!

I agree with Kenny's intuition that things are shifting toward a sober analysis of threat and effective response; away from childish denial.

Hight time too.

Theodopoulous,

We are not alone, it seems:

"A thin majority of Americans still believe the situation in Iraq was worth going to war, but most are unconvinced that the war has made the United States safer from terrorist attacks, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows." - from: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-11-18-iraq-poll_x.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-11-18-iraq-poll.htm

"In hugging Washington as warmly as possible, Mr. Blair is doing what almost all postwar prime ministers have done, but it has placed him at the side of an American chief executive who is a polarizing figure in Britain and in support of an American-led war that is deeply unpopular here." - from: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/19/international/europe/19CND-BRIT.html?ex=1070290560&ei=1&en=d47fbc630eeccc08

Btw so much for "the rule of law":

"International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

"In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: 'I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.'" - from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html

BTW - Can anyone explain to me exactly how it is possible to be 'anti-American'? When you think about it, it's silly, isn't it? How can one be 'anti' all 290 million people in the most ethnically and culturally diverse country in the world?

I think the truth is more like this: some of us are are not terribly keen on Bush because he is the poster boy for the most vicious form of anti-poor, anti-environment, anti-humanity, suicidal crony-capitalism so far spawned. And, judging by New Labour's willingness to sell off every public asset to the private sector, it's coming here, no matter who we vote for. And that genuinely frightens those of us with our eyes open to see it.

The speech was good but it is difficult to prattle on about democracy for all when you examine situations like that in Guinea (West Africa). Once more the activities of a dictator are being actively supported by American oil interests. Democracy for all simply means 'a form of government that supports our interests'. You cannot have it both ways. I'm a conservative but facts are facts.

So, Bob, which side are you on? Or are you above taking sides? It is a difficulty: this two sides to every question thingy. But perhaps there's no question.

So, Derek, one must be actively buidling democracy in every little corner of the world simulteneously before you can begin do so in another region? And, where exactly would that paragon of Euro-virtue, France, hold up on this standard?

Fair enough, phasd, if it was simply a matter of the US not getting around to "actively buidling democracy in every little corner of the world". What we are talking here is the ACTIVE SUPPORT of tyranny for US national/oil interests.

Well JT it is called 'devil and the deep blue sea'

Do you think Petain got it right ? Do you think it is better to just give in because you can find no lilywhite allies ? I prefer to use whatever means it takes to survive. The world is very dangerous, and will become increasingly so.

The Alliance system of 1945 is dead. The US now looks after its own interests; Europe keeps thinking it is looking after Europe and cannot stand the idea of the guard dog going off to take care of itself.

The whole structure of Western society is now in flux as jobs migrate to the Third World, and in time the export industries will be gone.

Technical progress and manufacturing is leaving Europe, and the ability to sustain our societies will become harder as we have to defend ourselves against irrationalism with bombs.

You have one point though JT. There is very little oil in democracies.....they just consume it.

Now China is sucking in nickel, oil, coal, steel and benefitted from Clinton uncoupling trade from human rights after Tienamen Square......maybe it is time to toplle the Chinese regime by putting import controls on their goods........this week textile tariffs went on, or after 2005 ALL jobs will disappear in textiles throughout Asia and Europe.........so yes, let us free 1 billion people from the Communist Party.

"Do you think it is better to just give in because you can find no lilywhite allies?"

Fine - but don't come complaining when your allies (Osama, Sadam) turn around and bite you.

On oil & the economy: you're right, we're heading for big trouble. Systemic problems requiring systemic changes, not just a change of government. Neither left nor right has the answers. But that's for another time.

If a US company is doing business in some African dictatorship, how does that translate into "actively" supporting tyranny? Should they just pull out altogether? Well, the US has in many cases on principle in countries like Myanmar, Iraq. unlike some of its European conterparts I might add. But in others, the US does do business there as do European countries.
Is Africa a mess? Sure. But it is sure not the fault of the US.

And, before you throw out the 'stans as an example of US tyranny, I'd chalk that up to expediency, seeing as they sit right between the volatile Middle East and arms and WMD-laden Russia. Yes it would be nice if these places were a bit freer.

And one of those Northern Alliance leaders the US partnered w/ in Afghanistan may turn into Hitler-incarnate one day. That doesn't mean that supporting him now was wrong. In many cases you have the worst option and the least-worst option, not necessarily a best option.

One more thing. Why is only the US singled out for supposedly "actively supporting tyranny." This is as opposed to Europe, which has a far more extensive record of cozying up to dictators, or the developing world, which celebrates them as their champions (eg, Castro)

It is just sickening to see these Arabs now whining about when self-rule is coming to the Iraqis, when they sure didn't care much about it a few months ago.

"It is a matter of defeating them [terrorists]or being defeated by them, and that is what we are going to do." Tony Blair, November 20, 2003.

This was in response to being questioned by a reporter as to why he was standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush when it was the Anglo-American alliance that was responsible for the attacks on British targets, and deaths,in Istanbul today.

Being an anglophile these days is a very choppy experience.

Do you think it is better to just give in because you can find no lilywhite allies?"

Bin Laden was never our 'ally'. He was a fundraiser run by the Saudi Interior Minister to raise money from Saudis and in the Gulf.

Frankly, the problem came when Ronnie refused a deal with Gorby when the Russians withdrew, and Pakistan and Saudi started to play games in Afghanistan.

If Billy Boy Clinton had not been so obsessed with hyping 'The New Paradigm' of American Everlasting-Money-Creation; he could have had Bin Laden on a platter from Sudan.

Even if Bin Laden had been doing our will at some stage he should have been terminated when he ceased to be of use. It is a real pity that the Gerald Ford EO bans liquidation of problems like bin Laden, so until he can be 'arrested' and arraigned before a 'grand jury' without violating his 'rights', poor Clinton could not see how to deal with it.....lawyers !!!!

Europe refuses the learn the lessons of its past. That is why it has experienced constant warfare on its soil for a couple thousand years, exempting of course the last 60 years of peace, which were bought and paid for by the military muscle of the Pax Americana.

Britian used to be the one normal large power in Europe, the one who cleaned up the Continent's messes before the Americans came on the scene. Britain gave refuge to French refugees during the Terror, got rid of Crazy Napoleon and stood fast against the Kaiser and Hitler for years with only the worthless French as "allies." It's sad to see Britain descending into the typical barborous doings of the Continent, in contrast to its proud history of the past.

I have my hopes that Britain will reclaim its history and senses, but these hopes seem rather far away when I see stuff like this.

At great expense in blood and treasure, the US gave Europe its chance to escape its ludicrous history of wars, famines and periodic rampages of nuttiness, and they, typically, are pissing this chance away at an alarming speed. Eventually Americans will tire of the stupidity of Europe and just leave it to repeat its historical fate.

Susan,

"Britian used to be the one normal large power in Europe"

At the time of Britain's first census in 1801, just past mid way through the Napoleonic Wars which lasted through to the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, the population of 10.5 million was about the same as Spain's and half that of France. Germany was then a collection of principalities and dukedoms. Although you say Britain acted to maintain the peace in Europe, quite a few Europeans would say that while building an extensive overseas empire Britain acted to ensure no European state became the dominant hegemon on the continental mainland. Some would even go further to suggest that it was the power rivalries prompted by that policy which lead to the two European wars of the 20th century that developed into world wars.

I'm reminded of a congenial bar room conversation in the mid 1970s with a man who was a highly successful entrepreneur in the brutally competitive garment manufacturing business. We were bemoaning Britain's economic decline in those pre-Thatcher times - inviting in the IMF to bail out the economy in 1976 was yet to come. Mindful of Ricardo's principle of comparative advantage, I said we British must be relatively good at something. Yes, he said, war. As he had been awarded the Military Cross, he knew what he was speaking of. And he was right.

Any who think wars before the 20th century were a doddle: "All of the Napoleonic battles listed above [Austerlitz, Borodino, Eylau, Jena-Auerstadt, Waterloo] began and ended on the same day, usually from sunrise to sunset. Waterloo was a 10-hour battle; therefore, there were an everage of 6,100 casualties per hour of the battle." - from: http://napoleonic-literature.com/WE/Casualties.html

Susan, Great Britain was never the dominant power in Europe; and always needed alliances.

At one stage it subsidised Frederick The Great of Prussia as its Continental ally against Russia and France. It was saved at Waterloo by the forces of Bluecher, who arrived in time to turn the tide of the battle.

Until the neglect under Lord Salisbury it had Germany as an ally, but then ended up with France which proved to be disastrous for British interests twice in a generation.

Prior to that we had an unfortunate alliance with Spain under Mary Tudor; and under Cromwell our navy brought Portugal into protective custody.

British 20th Century politics shows the absolutely disastrous European policy of non-engagement followed by War; and yes, the US did hold our coats and sell us weapons (making us liquidate our US assets) while we bankrupted this country.......and yes, it was fortunate that Hitler declared war on the US on December 11th 1941, after turning the USSR to our cause; so in both cases the Russians proved earlier conerts to the British cause than the US. Thank God for Canada, India, Australia, and New Zealand, and of course, South Africa.

"At great expense in blood and treasure, the US gave Europe its chance to escape its ludicrous history of wars, famines and periodic rampages of nuttiness, and they, typically, are pissing this chance away at an alarming speed. Eventually Americans will tire of the stupidity of Europe and just leave it to repeat its historical fate. "

Don't know what history book you use, but switch from the condensed version quickly !

Only 2 countries benefitted from WW2 - the USSR and USA. The USSR got more land and technology; the USA got very rich and selling weapons to Britain revived the US economy for FDR. Then both USA and USSR got access to German patents, and British and German companies lost their assets in the USA.

Marshall Aid overcame the Dollar Gap without which Europe could not have bought US goods postwar, and the US export sector would have collapsed. It allowed Britain to import food....after all BRitain was insolvent by late 1940 as Sir John Simon informed Churchill, the Us insisting on Cash in $ for weapons purchases refusing Sterling.

Americans can happily tire of Europe as you put it. After all George Bush was elected as an Isolationist President to withdraw from the world, until bin Laden brought the world to America.

From the day the first ICBM was put in the first Russian silo it has been impossible for the US to ignore Europe or now Asia. The fact is Susan, are you reading the right books to understand what is going on ? Do not rely on "Fox News Guide To The World Outside".

Poland lost 20% population in war, saw its capital city levelled, and most schools and homes destroyed by German and Soviet Armies; the war started on 1st September 1939; but armed with the Neutrality Acts the US declared itself neutral.

It was Great Britain that once again let France drag her into conflict with Germany; and Germany that once again tried to keep Britain neutral whilst it dominated east and west.

Britain is just another piece in the European balance of power, and only the insular could imagine it steers the process rather than being merely someone's counterweight.

NOw it is the USA which sees it as its counterweight in Europe, France and Germany want to become one country and look to Russia as their counterweight.

Susan,

Always worth remembering something George Orwell wrote - I'm sure Tony Blair and George Bush do:

"Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." [Nineteen Eighty-four]

What do the protestors want? If they would stop to listen, if they were rational, if they weren't consumed by an emotion-based hatred (and adolescent rebellion), they'd see that Bush is agreeing with them in many respects!

The following makes the point in more detail:

What Do They Want?

http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2003/11/what_do_they_wa.html

Melanie and others, I think that some of the current debate about the war and All That would be better informed if we, who supported the war, were a bit more discriminating in how we describe the antis. As far as I can make out, there are fairly distinct groups, although they are lumped together.

First, the pacifists. They oppose all wars. Period. Such people are either religious, secular, and can be found mostly on the soft left, if they have a political view. They tend to be very small in number.

Then, there are the America-haters. They can be leftwingers, embittered old Marxists, or for that matter, embittered old European rightwingers who bemoan the loss of their empires and envy the Americans for their relative strength. There are a lot of such people, and they make a lot of noise.

Thirdly, I would add the isolationists. Such folk tend to be libertarian in political and cultural outlook, and hate wars that are fought which can not be shown, in almost legally watertight terms, to be in the direct self-interest of the nation waging it. Such folk tend to dislike the Iraq campaign not because they cannot accept Saddam as an evil man, but because they cannot see how his regime directly threatened us.

This latter group contains a lot of delusionists, but it also, to be fair, contains folk who are sincere in their views, love their nations and would probably be on Ms Phillip's side in 99 pct of most other issues. Let's not forget that in all the brickbats that are flying at the moment.

Well, if you note that www.stopwar.org.uk has exceeded its bandwidth limits you will find you cannot register your mobile phone to get send SMS alerts telling you to walk out of your classroom and assemble in the protest.

It really does not need a lot of organisation nowadays to get this together, and with Soft Left Guardian propaganda oozes from the BBC it reinforces the mood music of the @Princess Diana Empathy Crowd' who accentuate the emotional over the rational.

In an age where too many people do not uphold a traditional religious conviction they are prey to sentimentality and patheism, which are the very totems the Nazis used for their creed, and are used by the Greens in their pseudo-religion of environmentalism. It is the elevation of sentimentalism to an abstract belief that they are the elect and the non-believers are somehow malevolent that makes the fanaticism of Animal Rights, or Greens, or'Peaceniks' so peculiar, the intolerant polarisation.

They articulate no oherent program, no sensible alternative, because as Nye Bevan said...."It is an emotional spasm."

Peter, I wasn't just talking about the World Wars. I was talking about the US's role in guaranteeing Europe's safety AFTER the war, for going on sixty years now. This guarantee has not been cheap. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US fund NATO by 75 percent to 25 percent? Yet most Euros seem to persist in thinking that the past 60 years of "unprecedented peace and prosperity" (as Timothy Garton Ash bragged to the Guardian a while back) have been solely the result of Europe's own efforts.

It remains to be seen how far those years of "unprecedented peace and prosperity" will stretch if/when the US removes Europe from the protection of the Pax Americana, forcing Europe to spend money on its own defense at a time when members states will also be facing their own looming pension crises and also, dealing with welfare drains from unproductive immigrants.

My guess is that Europe will return to historical form at that time.

As for the rest of the stuff you wrote about our role in WWII, the Neutrality Acts were passed because of European defaults on massive WWI war loans that played havoc with the US economy, it was a contributing factor to the financial system failures of the Great Depression. We lost 90,000 men and got the Great Depression in return for "helping" Europe in WWI. When Euros whine about our "late" entry into WWII, they tend to forget how much bitterness WWI and its after effects caused in the US.

I took a vacation to small mountain town in the summer, not much changed since pioneer days, settled mainly by German, Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon immigrants. A town of maybe 2,500 people, with a charming museum that detailed the town's history, including the military participation of its citizens.

I was struck by the exhibits for WWI and WWII. For WWI, there was a list of scores of typed names, typed on an old manual typewriter, detailing the names of the town's dead.

For WWII, another list of names. The thing that got to me is that they were the SAME names as the WWI list, the same Scandinavian, German and Anglo-Saxon names. Just different generations of the same families, killed for wars that the US had nothing to do with starting.

I would have been bitter against Europe in the 1930s also, and would have backed the Neutrality Acts too.

Actually the USA did very well out of both world wars. The loans you speak about are interesting, since Britain had huge loans to Russia and France it never got back. The US loaned a fortune to Germany, but it was not favours as you seem to imply but a need to prop up the world financial system.

As for the Depression, take a look at the death of Benjamin Strong of the Fed in 1928 and the change in US monetary policy afterwards. The US had rampant speculation whereas Europe was bust throughout the 1920s, the debt repayments to the Us deflating the European economy and inflating the US economy.

90.000 is a lot of casualties for one year of war, maybe you ought to look at war memorials in Europe......and look at Russian war dead in both wars. Oxford University lost 10% of every class from 1914..........and take a look at towns like Bury which lost almost all their young men

http://europeanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/blww1castable.htm

THe sale of US defence equipment is very lucrative and if Congress persists in a 'buy American only' policy, Britain will have to cease buying the JSF or other Us equipment and merge its defence businesses into European ones.

The US can become isolationist, but it will be no safer. It did it in 1945 when Lend-Lease was cut off to Britain in May 1945. It is this attitude which will see the US isolated as it turns away from Great Britain. This is the very reason why the Us has a mixed reception here....and it seems from your comments Susan that Britain should not rely upon the US which is withdrawing from the world.

The Neutrality Acts were favoured by Anti-Semitic, Anglophobes like Charles Lindbergh and Joseph Kennedy, and Father Coughlin, and the Irish brigade in the US. Neutrality was profitable, and without Ford, GM, IBM, ITT many German businesses could not have operated during WW2; just as without US aid the Soviet Union could not have industrialised as fast.

The Neutrality Acts are one good reason why criticism of Neville Chamberlain is cant and humbug from US sources; another is that the US Government placed a notorious anti-Semite and pro-Nazi in London as its ambassador. On 5th September 1939 the US invoked neutrality; on 15th June 1940 it did so again. "Cash and Carry" was the name given to weapons supplies to fight the war against Hitler, a war fought by Britain and its Empire with Polish and Czech assistance; but now appropriated by the world as if they were all on-board. 1917-18, and 1941-45 are not dates recognised in our version of history, for 1939-41 while the US was 'neutral' the USSR was an ally of the Nazis.

WE need no lessons from neutrals.

" . . .WE need no lessons from neutrals."

Peter, you may claim it was all Europe's doing all you want. But, the fact remains that the US saved your bacon not just once, but several times in the last century. If it had not been for the US you would surely be speaking German or Russian today.

The neutrality thing is a red herring! You cannot blame the US for staying out as long as possible. Indeed, the anti-Semitic Euros are doing the very same thing now and this time WE are blaming them. Every country does what it believes to be the right thing is for its citizens and national security.

As to the US having done OK on the two World Wars—to the victor go the spoils. We sacrificed our sons and our national treasure to save Europe and we deserved repayment. Not all countries re-paid their loans.

And now— Europe is positively salivating at the chance to get some business out of the Iraqi war and they have certainly not done their share—yet.

Lili

Yes, but what seems to have worried FDR was that if Britain fell, and the Peace Party was negotiating with Germany for a separate peace, the Royal Navy might be turned over to Germany....with the Royal Navy + Japan + Italy + France, Germany would control all the oceans and be able to blockade the US. Coupled with Soviet oil and natural resources, it would be a bi-polar world where the US would have been a junior partner to the Reich.

As for the US being so altruistic in the postwar years, you might re-read the section above replacing Germany with USSR.....had Europe succumbed to Stalin after 1945, the Us would have been a very lonely place in a different world.

Great Britain is geographically part of Europe; and people in the USA should be careful how they speak and act, because Rumsfeld has caused enormous problems within Britain let alone Continental Europe; first with his loose tongue, secondly with his incompetent performance.

It is significant that yesterday at an Anglo-French Summit Blair gave Chirac a signed photo of his 3 year old son (!!!!) MUst be something he learned from his friends The Simpsons.

Chirac showed it to the press which printed it despite Blair asking them not to.

Q: Why would Blair give such a photo to the President of France ? Did Chirac beg for it; or did Blair try to ingratiate himself with Chirac ?

"members states will also be facing their own looming pension crises"

This is not purely a European problem ! The Japanese invested their savings in the US deficit, now they are drawing them down with an ageing population. The US Social Security Fund is not fully-funded, and the Retirees Medical bills are unsustainable. The 401ks are in big trouble because of Wall Street; and when uS firms implement FRS17 as an IAC standards they will see just how flakey US corporate profits really are......I mean adding returns of 10% on the Penson Fund to your income statement is bizarre !

So the pension deficits are a global problem; it is what we call systematic risk and the US deficits have sustained the world economy for 15 years whilst evrywhere else has deflated.

The economic problem is big and the US can no longer pump-prime the global economy, which is why it is back to Protectionism to stop China.....we are going back to 1930.

This is fascinating - more... more ...
if only these debates were permitted on TV. Can you imagine what Paxo would do if confronted by Peter & Lilith?

Well Frank, if you want the demographic basis of the pension problem, here goes.

When baby-boomers were paying in to pension plans things loooked really good, bebefits were increased. As baby-boomers came to retire things looked much more dire.

Added to which in the 1980s a clever way of getting rid of labour was to fire 50 year olds whose pension plans were costly. So you lose 10-15 years of pension contributions and when the 40 year olds in the 1980s come to retire, the pot is less full, added to which corporate funds have used wholly optimistic actuarial returns to make their funding cheaper.

All of this was predictable.....even politicians with a spreadsheet could have worked out from birthrate and extrapolation that people get older each decade, and you need hospital beds and pensions.

Peter, you skimmed right over my post without even bother to consider what I was saying. Typical European intellectual snobbery talking down to the "stupid" Yank.

In reply:

1.) Yes, I know that the European casualty rates were much higher in the World Wars than America's, but guess what? THEY WEREN'T OUR FUCKING WARS. You seem to be unable to grasp that fact. 90,000 lives -- and 300,000 from WWII -- is a pretty generous "gift" to Old Europe for wars that we had nothing to do with starting. And you are not exactly playing fair by comparing the US role in the World Wars to that of nations like Canada or New Zealand which were still "dominions" of the British Empire in that era. The US was a seperate sovereign nation in constrast.

2.) Father Coughlin, etc., were political demagogues exploiting American anger at Europe over WWI. Americans were not neutral because they were pro-Nazi or anti-Semitic, although pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic elements in the US certainly did exploit the Anti-European anger for all it was worth. The Neutrality Acts forbid arms sales to all "belligerent" nations and that included Germany as well as the UK, so you can't argue that its supporters were necessarily "pro-Nazis." Many were idealistic peacenicks who thought that restricting overseas arms sales would make the world safter.

3.) FDR gave Joseph P. Kennedy the job as ambassador to the UK in exchange for political and financial backing in 1932 that helped FDR get elected for the first time. Kennedy was fired when his views on the "gathering storm" in Europe clashed with FDR's (I note that you left this part of the story out.)

4.) Americans are tired of paying for extending the benefits of the Pax Americana to Europe, especially Western Europe. Many Europeans (like you) seem convinced that the Pax Americana is worthless to them, because they have no clue what Europe looked like before it came. This is probably European vanity and conceitedness for some (like you) and for the left-wingers, bitterness that the US defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. I half-favor rescinding the Pax Americana from Western Europe (Britain may be salvageable, so I would consider their case seperately) and teaching it a much-needed lesson in reality. If that's "disrespecting" Europe, I couldn't really care less. I'm the one who shells out the tax dough that "protects" the European assholes who burn our flags and spit in our faces at every opportunity. If the US continues to police the Continent, Western Europe will simply continue to multiply its attachments to childish fantasies and sick ideologies. Part of the problem with Europe now is tht the US has protected it from reality so long it is like a spoiled teen-ager that beats up on evil old KKKapitalist Dad for being a "sell-out", then asks Dad for the keys to the Mercedes so he can drive to the anti-globalization demonstration. Lots of Americans are questioning why we keep handing over the keys to the Mercedes to that spoiled teen-ager.

I wonder why it is that many Europeans, like many Arabs, arrogantly assert their right to hate America and Americans at any opporutnity, but become so offended when Americans return those sentiments back at them? Are ya'll that thin-skinned? Or just afraid we'll call your bluff?

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

It's not all lies - not all of it. That's the age-old dilemma.

Buildings burn. People die. But real love is forever.

Bush - fortunately - will be gone and quite forgotten in a couple of years. The BBC, in comparison, will outlive his pathetic presidency many, many times over, and rightly so. Thank God for the BBC (one of the few media outlets that we can trust).

Hello, have fun with easy blogging!

Good work.
Keep working on this blog.